1 Alternative assembly option of ILD Y.Sugimoto 2010/10/18 ILD Integration

2 ILC in mountain regions Design study of accelerator and conventional facilities (CF) in mountain regions is one of the major activities in GDE Design of the detector hall in mountain regions should be done by the detector community in cooperation with GDE CF group We (T.Sanuki, Y.Makida, M.Miyahara, Y.Sugimoto, T.Tauchi, H.Yamaoka, M.Yoshioka, A.Sugiyama) are now involved in this activity (since Apr.2010)

3 An example of Asian mountain site Exp-hall Access tunnel

4 Exp-hall in mountain regions For CMS-style assembly using big vertical shafts, depth of IP should be d≤100m This requirement restricts the location of IP in mountain regions By removing the constraint of d≤100m, more flexible choice of IP location and accelerator layout can be made –Selecting the location of the cavern with better geology would reduce the cost and the construction period Exp-hall without vertical shafts may be more suitable for some candidate sites in mountain region In that case, access tunnels are used to carry detector and accelerator components into detector cavern or accelerator tunnel We have just started to study on the exp-hall design and detector assembly method without vertical shafts as an option (n.b. It does not mean that the CMS-style assembly using vertical shafts is excluded for all candidate sites in mountain regions)

5 A possible design of exp-hall Bottom access tunnels at both ends (for 2 detectors) Small alcoves at garage positions for detector opening Top (duct) tunnel is bored first, and then the arch part of the cavern is excavated With vertical shafts Without vertical shaft

6 Detector assembly Assembly hall locates at the entrance of access tunnel where wide flat surface and wide roads exist Detector would be assembled to relatively small pieces (<100~200 ton) at the assembly hall, carried to the cavern through the access tunnel, and integrated to the large detector inside the cavern (Similar to “modified CMS style assembly” which was proposed by GLD group in 2006) Barrel iron structure would be divided in  (and R) direction, rather than Z direction Solenoid coil would be wound on surface for 5 modules, and these modules are connected into one solenoid in the cavern Detailed study on the assembly method is necessary

7 Comments Comments at DESY ILD WS in July –Construction period? –Space for assembly of the solenoid and iron yoke? Comments by SiD at CFS in Aug –No problem!

8 Construction period Construction period is one of the most controversial issues for the shaft-less exp-hall Construction period of an access tunnel (L~1km) would be similar to that of a vertical shaft (  =18m, d~100m) Non-CMS style assembly was once proposed for GLD as “modified CMS assembly” which can be done within the same time period as the CMS style assembly Assembly of the iron yoke structure and the solenoid in the cavern would take ~1y, but it does not mean that non-CMS style assembly (new modified CMS-style assembly) takes 1y more than CMS style assembly

9 CMS Style CMS style Before CCR in

10 Modified CMS style CMS style Modified CMS style 1y for Yoke assembly + 1y for Sub-detector install

11 New modified CMS style

12 Space for assembly We need enough space to assemble the iron yoke and the solenoid in parallel Solenoid assembly procedure and installation method have to be studied Exp-hall should be equipped with two 200-ton cranes: usually one for each detector, and occasionally two cranes are used together to carry heavy (>200 ton) components

13 Lower risk option Larger (h~11m) access tunnel is an attractive option if the cost is not very high –Solenoid is constructed and tested on surface, and carried into the cavern through the access tunnel –This option has much less risk

14 Summary Modified CMS style assembly for shaft-less detector hall will not take longer time than CMS-style assembly Underground space needed for solenoid assembly is not clear yet Solenoid assembly/test on surface is an attractive option if the cost of larger access tunnel is not terribly high There are many issues to be studied for the exp-hall optimization; some of them are common to the CMS style assembly: –Configuration of He system (He compressor location, piping compatible with push-pull, etc.) –Power supply of Solenoid (location, electricity, cooling) –Gas ventilation in solenoid quench –Power consumption (He compressor, detector, lighting, etc.) –Cooling water (detector, dump resister, etc.) –Air conditioning (cooling) –Drainage of ground water –Human safety including escape route –Vehicle for heavy (~200 ton) components through the access tunnel –………………….

15 Backup slides

16 A possible design of exp-hall Wall can be upright if the geology is good

17 A possible design of exp-hall

18 A possible design of exp-hall

19

20 Access tunnel

21 Huge caverns in Japan More than 20 huge caverns with access tunnels have been constructed in Japan for hydroelectric power plants A 25m(W)x47m(H)x130m(L) (94,000m 3 ) cavern can be excavated only in 14 months, and a 34mx54mx210m (250,000m 3 ) was excavated in 21 months

22 Example of a cavern Underground hydroelectric power plant in Japan (Kannagawa power plant) Cavern size: 33m(W)x51.4m(H)x215.9m(L) in hard sedimentary rocks Construction (excavation) period: ~1y for arch, ~1y for bench Depth: d~600m  Heavy components of generators were carried into the cavern through access tunnels